[Egyptian] On "A system of control characters for Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic text" (2016-07-23)

Tue Jul 26 13:31:13 BST 2016

Hi Stéphane

I’m glad we agree on the importance of trying to avoid problems downstream. Its dead easy to build a complex untested system, the challenge is to create something that actually works and maximizes usability without introducing complexity and future problems. If that means sacrificing some functionality short term it’s a small price to pay.

I’ve much sympathy with what you would like to be able to do and if I could magic up a silver bullet I surely would. If someone else has a suggested improvement great so long as it works. This is not a competition however much seem to want to paint it as such. 

Point in hand. By putting your name to a specific technical proposal you and others who are listed are telling UTC that this is the system you would like to use day to day. In every detail. It really is that simple. If it’s just intended as a discussion document not an implementation proposal that should be made clear.

Bob

From: Egyptian [mailto:egyptian-bounces at evertype.com] On Behalf Of Stéphane polis
Sent: 26 July 2016 10:52
To: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS <egyptian at evertype.com>
Subject: Re: [Egyptian] On "A system of control characters for Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic text" (2016-07-23)

Sorry Stéphane you get the brunt, price you pay for being the first :).

Hi Bob,

There is nothing to be sorry about: a discussion is a discussion and you can have your opinion, based on your experience and I respect it (same with Marwan: as he said, there is nothing personal here, and I definitely agree). 

Now, if one wants to reach a consensus at some point, as Nigel was pleading it, it would be great not to distord what I said in order to perpetuate this ‘unbalanced relationship’ that leads to nothing (if I am to trust what you say as IT and font specialist, why would you systematically discard the evidence provided and the argument developed as regards the basic capabilities that would be important for us, i.e. the egyptologists working on electronic corpora and developing the textual resources for the filed, to have. Respecting you as a specialist of your field, when the reverse does not seem to hold, is not always an easy task I confess and requires some sangfroid.)

Congratulations for being the first to (heartfully) express public support for a representation of MdC X1:R1 that uses  3 control characters. 

Certainly Unicode could handle it but I’m a little sceptical most Egyptologists could. I hope we’ll have this topic cleared up in the next few days otherwise I think we are going to have to draw more Egyptologists into the discussion.

Why do you feel the need to distord my words (if not to antagonize the positions): I said that the syntax (number of control characters, etc.) had no importance for me whatsoever, leaving this up to specialists; what matters are the principles, and I quote ‘what you can effectively achieve’ with these control characters. At the moment, these basic needs — and significant compromises and simplifications have been made, don’t you agree? — are only covered by Mark-Jan’s proposal. That’s it, nothing less, nothing more. If you have a better ‘technical’ solution for these capabilities, please go for it and submit them to the group, the way it’s done doesn’t matter to me at all!

Incidentally have you ever attempted to edit text written in a Complex Script using a word processor? If you haven’t I suggest you do then perhaps think again about what you are putting your name to.

No (depending on your definition of complex scripts obviously), and that’s why I trust people like you, So, Marwan and others to find acceptable solution for the edition, I fully accept that you’re the specialists and that it is not a simple issue. But we’re in the 21st century and you’re imaginative IT guys: I’m sure that the basic arrangement of signs that Egyptians could handle is not beyond you reach, even with Unicode! (Note, as I said several times: ancient Egyptian is not English, 5.000.000 words max., including Demotic, and very soon most of the texts will be available freely in MdC, so the encoding speed/efficiency that you repeatedly mention is almost of no concern for long texts that could be converted; and for short quotations, words, etc., I’m pretty confident that between 30 sec. a sentence with limited capabilities and 2 min. a sentence for a more adequate encoding, most Egyptologists would choose the second [again, I’m not representative of anyone but myself, that’s a general and subjective feeling; you can ask for a consultation using the IAE mailing list I suppose, but be ready for some actual craziness ;)].

Now, let me return the argument: have you spent the last 15 years reading, teaching, publishing, encoding and annotating all sorts of hieratic and hieroglyphic texts from OK inscriptions down to Late Period rituals? If you haven’t I suggest you do and perhaps think again about what kind of encoding scheme you’re developing. That’s completely caricatural and ridiculous, isn’t it? You certainly know what John Locke said about this kind of argument from authority, and I would never use them as you do in any sort of debate. Up until now, egyptological evidence was systematically provided by us for any kind of principle advocated for. There might be other ways to deal with theses cases than with control characters in Unicode (ligatures in fonts, HLP, compound characters in Unicode, name it), fine, but please no ‘further evidence is needed’ for the basic capabilities we’re talking about.

Reading what you’ve said here I suspect the underlying issue is you feel that if we don’t do everything now all is lost. 

No, my sole concern is that we do not go in one direction that will be problematic in the future. 

As such I will be really happy to see how your proposal can be expanded, e.g., for dealing with multiple levels of embedding: complex groups inserted in corners, several levels of embedding, etc. (you have all the data needed, right?). I’m simply not ready to buy a pig in a poke: we provide you with egyptological evidence, if you can do the same for the encoding scheme, perfect! My only concern is about long term evolution: I agree that having the equivalent of ‘:’ and ‘*’ in MdC would already be a big plus, I wrote it several times, but it should fit into the broader picture of a coherent scheme and not lead to some ‘bricolage’ on top of a (too) simple scheme.

Furthermore, I get perfectly that Unicode can be expanded and that it’s not a one time thing, but my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that withdrawing and/or revising substantially a scheme is not likely to happen at any point, right? (just because resources will be quickly created, and that you do not want to be incompatible, right?)

You say you leave it to the specialists but then seem to want to ignore what we recommend! I can’t  think of anyone I’ve met with solid software experience who would see the syntax of  “A System of …” as a practical step forward – if you find one put them in touch with me I enjoy new experiences!

Nope, again: I’m not ignoring what you recommend. I’m listening as carefully as I can (sorry for not being Bill Gates though) and, as I said, I’m open to any syntax guaranteeing coherent and adequate long-term extensions: simply show us how you’d proceed; evidence is needed both ways in well-balanced relationships. And, I hate to return the argument, but « I can’t think of anyone I’ve met with solid egyptological experience who would see the actual limitations of your scheme as a practical step forward for the Egyptology in the long run. » [and please take this as a joke, the argument from authority story.]

In a nutshell: I’m happily supporting any proposal that implements the basic capabilities described in Mark-Jan’s document (because, really, no further evidence is needed), or even part of it, *as long as one can show how it can be developed satisfactorily in the future* (I’m not an IT guy and I’m eager to learn and also enjoy new experiences). You asked for egyptological evidence, you have them; the opposite should hold, no? Again, I’d rather not buy a pig in a poke, so just tell me how your scheme can be expanded, at which level, etc. for supporting the capabilities of Mark-Jan’s proposal, with a comprehensive description that even people like me could understand, and I’m quite confident that we should be able to produce some consensus document!

Take care,

Stéphane 

Regards,

Bob

From: Egyptian [ <mailto:egyptian-bounces at evertype.com> mailto:egyptian-bounces at evertype.com] On Behalf Of Stéphane polis
Sent: 25 July 2016 11:25
To: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS < <mailto:egyptian at evertype.com> egyptian at evertype.com>
Subject: Re: [Egyptian] On "A system of control characters for Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic text" (2016-07-23)

Hi all,

If i may jump in one last time.

As I said several times, I leave entirely up to the specialists all the issues concerning the syntax of the operators.

What matters for me is what you can effectively achieve, and Mak-Jan’s proposal covers precisely what we minimally would like to have (which is why I support it heartfully). 

Now, if it really ends up to be too much for Unicode and that there is no way to make this happen there, but that you are confident that it can be handled at the level of HLPs, then can I ask a very naive question: what need is there for any control character in Unicode?

After all, Marwan’s font with the ligatures seems to work quite well for basic purposes, so it can be considered as a good solution for some users esp. when combined with So’s input system.

For other uses, we will need several types of grouping, groups inserted in groups, etc.: why would some bits end up in Unicode, while other would be up to HLP? Shouldn’t we try to have a coherent scheme and not something made of bits and pieces?

A real (even if maybe naive) concern.

Take care,

Stéphane

Le 24 juil. 2016 à 20:41, Bob Richmond < <mailto:bobqq at live.co.uk> bobqq at live.co.uk> a écrit :

Hi Mark-Jan

We’ve been talking about plain text on and off for over 18 months so I was interested to read your L2/16-177 “new system” earlier this month and your latest update yesterday ( <https://mjn.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/tmp/unicode2.pdf> https://mjn.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/tmp/unicode2.pdf). Good to see your number of control characters now reduced, more consideration has been given to OpenType and some discussion in Cambridge has been factored in. I understand what you are trying to do and there are points I’d like to discuss when we have time. There are items you note that indeed need to be progressed and agreed (EMPTY, STACK CARTOUCHE …)

However I am disappointed you have not taken on board the fundamental failing with the scheme you’ve been developing that makes it unsuitable for Unicode plain text consideration, however useful it may be for other purposes. I thought this was clear at Cambridge but apparently not.

Unicode plain text hieroglyphic is exposed to a huge audience and the very first consideration is don’t make simple things complicated. Use of BEGIN/END for every group breaks that basic rule. Your scheme is unnecessarily complicated so fails at the outset. It’s a continuing distraction for the less technically minded in this group to continue to hold it up as a viable alternative to the current UTC recommendation. It is not.

MdC X1:R1 in your scheme uses 3 control characters. Quite honestly I find it hard to understand why anyone thinks this is possibly a good idea. If anyone reading this does support 3 over 1 please let me know your reasoning I’m actually quite curious why I’ve had to spend time on this.

What you’ve tried to do is build a theoretical model which describes cluster layout given a set of constraints and that’s all good as an academic exercise. I’d  be interested to see it tested against texts and data. All features of could be added in some way to the three control system as HLP or extra controls. 

So, there’s no need to throw your work away. Some parts apply to plain text implementation e.g. your description on making an MdC-like font. Plenty more you could re-purpose should you wish to continue to be involved in Unicode developments.

What I suggest you do is consider how you might use elements of your scheme in a simple higher level protocol on top of plain text as it is at present (I’ll be circulating my considered view on adding to the 3 control set on Tuesday). Brackets in an HLP could be ok for rare cases. May be useful for TLA and Ramses. 

Meanwhile if you have any ideas on how you would like to see e.g. 4 corners added to the existing proposal I’d be pleased to hear from your or anyone else on the topic.

Regards,

Bob

_______________________________________________
Egyptian mailing list
 <mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com> Egyptian at evertype.com
 <http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com

_______________________________________________
Egyptian mailing list
 <mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com> Egyptian at evertype.com
 <http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160726/7ad7a882/attachment.htm>